What Where Who

The media business really doesn’t do considered moderation. “Twitter is the marketing tool of the future.” “Twitter is finished.” “Social media marketing is the answer to all of mankind’s problems.” “Social media couldn’t sell an iceberg to a polar bear.” “TV is dead”. “TV revenues continue to grow.”

 And so on.

It sometimes seems we swing from an over-inflated enthusiasm for something, to a sense of being underwhelmed almost weekly.

So it is on a broader basis too.

In the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth (otherwise known as the full-service agency era) creative work was king. Never mind that we could only afford the odd spot on network TV; never mind that we knew from past experience that campaigns below a minimum threshold didn’t work; off we went anyway and placed our 60-or-30 second masterpieces.

‘The work’ was what mattered. We decided the ‘what’ (as in what we said) way ahead of the ‘where’ (or where we said it). As Bob Hoffman, The Adcontrarian has it on his site: “Creative people make the ads. Everyone else makes the arrangements.”

How the pendulum has swung. Now it’s the media numbers that exercise the industry; the impressions, the reach, the page views, the clicks. Now it’s the ‘who’, the ‘where’ and only then the ‘what’.

Salesmen rule, selling today’s equivalent of snake oil to a market that is both confused and ill-informed.

Confused because when it was a question of creativity driving everything at least everyone could have an opinion over what was or was not creative. You knew where you were. Now it seems we can’t even agree what ‘viewed’ means.

The trouble with numbers is they have an air of authority, of broaching no argument. ‘A’ is bigger than ‘B’, what could be simpler than that?

That’s where the ill-informed bit comes in, because often ‘A’ may appear bigger than ‘B’ but in reality is a lot smaller.

It is damaging to the health of the ad business to believe that everything we do has to be measured by short-term effect – however defined. It’s easy to talk about uplifts in clicks, or likes or retweets as if any of those things actually connected to something real like cash, or profit.

But the fact is that advertising can best add value to a business – real value measured by things like sales or profit or share price – when used in a combination of long-term brand building activities and short-term activation techniques. Read the evidence. Listen to Binet and Field.

 It is foolish to see the business as engaged in some sort of battle between the brand builders and the activators (or to put it another way between TV and online).

It is equally foolish to see the business as a competition between the creatives and the media specialists (in whatever form). Sir Martin Sorrell’s comments about the medium being more important than the message, and his thoughts on how the madmen have been replaced by the mathmen (a line you can bet wasn’t written by an algorithm) only compound this foolishness.

 Now more than ever we need delivery mechanisms and creative excellence working hand in glove.

 What we actually need is a new model that brings together the different disciplines in some way that allows them to work seamlessly together in harmony for the ultimate benefit of the client.

 Now, who can think of a name for such a forward-thinking, client-facing, fully integrated offering?


  1. Bravo !

  2. Er, Havas?

  3. Full service was built around a discipline. What you are describing is built around consumers. One may call it the same way but there is a big difference. Good piece by the way …

  4. Thanks all.
    Mainardo makes a good point; any new approach has to be built around consumers not a single discipline (like advertising).
    It’s a key reason why we shouldn’t call whatever it is ‘full-service’, instead building on the key benefits of such an approach whilst at the same time junking the baggage of the past.

  5. Good piece and agree with Mainardo’s point. Think the issue is not about the maths, to put it somehow (well, I have an opinion on that..!) but about the PROPER use of it. Technology, despite all of its benefits (in the sense of allowing us to do many thinks that not long ago were unthinkable) has opened a wedge for con-artists to thrive, because… it’s easier to have an opinion about art or aesthetics, less so about science BUT (and this is a huge BUT) many do BS their way out by proper use of some soundbites and techno-blabble. And throwing a curve ball to Mainardo, many “full service” agencies are also to blame for that. But that’s another story.

  6. Honesty?
    The illeteracy of most of these madmen and mathmen (are they really?)always comes to my help when feeling down and confused by the clarity of their recommendations.It really makes me sober again when I realize they can’t even write.

  7. see what I mean? I just realized that I’ve joined them. Sorry folks!
    illiteracy (not illeteracy).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *